alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018408EN.01006002.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/60

---

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YR v Commission

(Case T-571/18)

(2018/C 408/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YR (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 13 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 13 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| — | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of general implementing provisions on the reimbursement of medical fees, in so far as the defendant’s amended interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of general implementing provisions on the reimbursement of medical fees, in so far as the defendant’s amended interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration.

| — | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.

| — | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure properly to balance the applicant’s interests and to comply with the principle of proportionality, which failures vitiate the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure properly to balance the applicant’s interests and to comply with the principle of proportionality, which failures vitiate the contested decision.

---
I PAN CONVEYOR I 

LUMP BIN SAMPLER 

I 22X CONVEYOR I 

EVELETH MINES FLOW SHEET No. 8 

FROM LINE 2 

COOLER 

SEE SHEET 7 

PELLET LOADOUT FROM LINE I 

COOLER 

SEE SHEET 7 

VIBRATING FEEDER I I VIBRATING FEEDER : 

IDUST SUPRESSIDNII 

I 21A CONVEYOR I I 

21 CONVEYOR I 

--- ---- : 21B CONVEYOR I 

~ 22S CONVEYOR 

----- -- -- ------------- --- ALTERNATES '-.... <::- ---- 22N CONVEYOR I "' -::-_ - ,_ 

'-

',--_ ALTERNATE 

ALTERNATE', ' ' ---, 

', ',, ALTERNATE AL TEF 

I 23S CONVEYOR --------~"-~~~----- ~------

l ' ' ' 

I PAN CONVEYOR I 

I I IUD "DTI\1 

' 23N CONVEYOR I '----

' PELLET BIN #3 PELLET BIN #2 PELLET BIN #1 BOOO L T 3700 LT 3700 LT TRAl 

t SCAl 

I I 

RAILROAD CAR LOADOUT
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
The President's Trees Plaque Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# C_2018182EN.01001202.xml

| 28.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Agrenergy Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

(Case C-180/18)

(2018/C 182/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agrenergy Srl

Appellant:

Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Should Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) be interpreted — including in view of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the overall system of rules introduced by that directive to incentivise the production of energy from renewable sources — as rendering incompatible with EU law national legislation which allows the Italian Government, in subsequent implementing decrees, to reduce or even remove incentives introduced earlier?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

1

---
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Colin Binny President
(Chief Executive Officer) and Francis Foong, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
         operations of the Company.

/s/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------

President
May 17, 2005


/s/ Francis Foong
-------------------------------------

Chief Financial Officer
May 17, 2005
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 940 

Expressing support for designation of December 3, 2016, as the ‘‘National 

Day of 3D Printing’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2016 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself and Mr. TAKANO) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of December 3, 2016, 

as the ‘‘National Day of 3D Printing’’. 

Whereas additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, 

is a process by which digital 3D design data is used to 

build up a component in layers by depositing material; 

Whereas 3D printing creates an object layer by layer, greatly 

reducing waste and increasing efficiency compared to traditional manufacturing techniques; 

Whereas 3D printing has grown exponentially over the last 

several years; 

Whereas the United States is a world leader in advanced 

manufacturing, and has a history of design innovation; 

Whereas public-private partnerships that promote advanced 

manufacturing, such as the Digital Manufacturing and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 940 IH 

Design Innovation Institute and other Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, will develop enhanced digital capabilities to design and test new products and reduce costs in 

manufacturing processes across a variety of industries; 

Whereas 3D printing has widespread applications in home 

construction, home goods production, biotechnology, the 

automotive sector, aerospace, medicine, consumer electronics, and defense; 

Whereas 3D printing has the potential to reshape manufacturing in the United States, by decreasing the cost of 

producing goods for small businesses and local manufacturers; 

Whereas innovation will be increased, as 3D printing reduces 

the time required for product development and market 

launch; and 

Whereas, December 3, 2016, would be an appropriate date to 

designate as the ‘‘National Day of 3D Printing’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of the ‘‘National 

3 Day of 3D Printing’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the economic impact of 3D print5 ing and the positive implications of 3D printing for 

6 the United States advanced manufacturing sector; 

7 and 

8 (3) encourages the promotion and celebration of 

9 3D printing technology. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
#### Spencer Lamont STACEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-6712.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 2005.

Decided: Oct. 13, 2005.

*440Spencer Lamont Stacey, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Spencer Lamont Stacey seeks to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition entered on March 3, 2005. Stacey, however, did not file his notice of appeal until April 29, 2005,* which is outside the thirty day appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The appeal period is “ ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’ ” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

We construe Stacey’s pro se notice of appeal, in which he indicated his intent to appeal and alleged that he did not timely receive notice of his action being dismissed, as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). *See United States v. Feuver,*236 F.3d 725, 729 & n. 7 (D.C.Cir.2001). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for it to determine whether Stacey satisfies the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). *Ogden v. San Juan County,*32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir.1994). The record, as supplemented, then will be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED*

*

 This court has given Stacey the benefit of the "prison mailbox” rule, *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), regarding the filing date of this document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,000,00
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,001,556
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,001,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,484
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                        12,351
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,818,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,001,556
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,569,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,361,302)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,361,302)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (255,680)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,616,713)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ian Dawes, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered January 27, 1987, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it admitted photographs of the victim’s dead body into evidence. The photographic evidence was properly admitted to illustrate and corroborate other relevant evidence pertaining to the issue of justification *(see, People v Stevens,*76 NY2d 833, 835-836; *People v Pobliner,*32 NY2d 356, 369-370, *cert denied*416 US 905; *People v Wood,*172 AD2d 707).

Additionally, and contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the court’s justification charge was proper. The court’s instruction clearly conveyed to the jury that it was to consider any prior experiences that the defendant may have had which could provide a reasonable basis for a belief that the victim’s intentions were to injure him or that the use of force was necessary *(see, People v Wesley,*76 NY2d 555, 559).

*175We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit *(see, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 240 (Friday, December 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27622]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PXI Systems Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 17, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. 
(``PXI Systems'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Kinetic Systems, Lockport, IL, has withdrawn as a party 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 5, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on October 6, 2023 (88 FR 69672).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-27622 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### COMPUTERWORKS, INC. *v.*BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF LEDYARD ET AL.

(AC 19466)

Foti, Zarella and O’Connell, Js.

Argued June 2

officially released August 22, 2000

*Victor J. S'pata, Jr.,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Hugh Culhbertson,*with whom were *Jody P. Benbow*and, on the brief, *Frederick L. Dorsey,*for the appel-lees (defendants).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The controlling issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly rendered judgment dismissing the second count of the plaintiffs complaint. The sole reference to the second count in the trial court’s memorandum of decision is as follows: “The plaintiffs argument that the second count should survive a motion to dismiss is unavailing.” The plaintiff did not seek an articulation of this naked declaration.

“Under these circumstances, we . . . are left to surmise or speculate as to the existence of a factual predicate for the trial court’s rulings. Our role is not to guess at possibilities, but to review claims based on a complete factual record developed by the trial court. . . . Without the necessary factual and legal conclusions *544furnished by the trial court . . . any decision made by us respecting [the plaintiffs claim] would be entirely speculative.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust*v. *AECO Elevator Co.,*48 Conn. App. 605, 608, 710 A.2d 190 (1998), quoting *Alix*v. *Leech,*45 Conn. App. 1, 5, 692 A.2d 1309 (1997). “The duty to provide this court with a record adequate for review rests with the appellant. Practice Book § 60-5 . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) *Lombardi*v. *Lombardi,*55 Conn. App. 117, 118, 737 A.2d 988 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 943, 747 A.2d 520 (2000).

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>





Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q/A-1 (the "Report") of
Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Leong Hin Chua,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Leong Hin Chua
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
August 6, 2010
RECORD OF COMMUNICATION:

DATE: November 9, 2010 TYPE: Meeting PARTICIPANTS: Arizona Public Service: Mark Schiavoni, Senior Vic e President of Fossil Generation; Ed Fox, Vice President and Chief Sustainability Office; AnnBecker, Counsel EPA, Region 9: Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Divis ion; Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division EPA Region 9 (by phone): Anita Lee; Ann Lyons, Ste ve Frey, Scott Bohning SUBJECT: Four Corners Power Plant APS provided the information that it had issued a press release announcing that APS would be purchasing Southern California Edison’s sh are of ownership in Units 4 & 5. Subject to several regulatory and lease approvals, APS woul d shut-down Units 1, 2 & 3 in 2014, and install SCR technology on Units 4 & 5 by 2018. APS stated that it would be submitting additional written information to EPA within a few weeks. Preliminarily, APS indicated that its p roposal would achieve result in greater visibility improvements to surrounding Class I area s.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1103 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 212
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1103

                          [Report No. 114-132]

 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2015

    Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Crapo) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                           September 9, 2015

              Reported by Ms. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT INVOLVING CLARK CANYON DAM.

    Notwithstanding the time period described in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12429, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as 
the ``Commission'') shall, at the request of the licensee for the 
project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance with the 
procedures of the Commission under that section, reinstate the license 
and extend the time period during which the licensee is required to 
commence construction of project works for the 3-year period beginning 
on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                                       Calendar No. 212

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1103

                          [Report No. 114-132]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 9, 2015

                       Reported without amendment
```